Originally posted by: ValsalvaYourHeartOut
Originally posted by: sparkyclarky
You don't pay attention, do you? I mention that I HAVE Raptors. That is not irrelevant at all. That means I have experience with them.
You wrote that you had TWO Raptor's in RAID0, which again is 100% irrelevant. I was comparing to a SINGLE Raptor. 2 is not the same as 1. Ask any kindergarten teacher.
I have an excellent understanding of psychology - there's no need to patronize me.
Clearly, you do not. Frequently, people tend to overestimate their actual knowledge in an area. Perhaps you're familiar with a study published by the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments. It's a must-read for you.
Subjective experience matters in computer hardware, because in the end that's all that you get from it. You interact with your computer hardware. Unless you are a hardware reviewer, you aren't sitting around all day benchmarking. You USE your hardware. And I can assure you that there is no "placebo effect" influencing my assessment of my Raptors.
It's patently obvious to anyone with even casual knowledge in psychology and experimental design that when somebody who has just spent $500 on 2 Raptors will NATURALLY report subjective improvements in performance REGARDLESS of actual differences because of the influence of positive expectations. Furthermore, should there be actual differnce in performance, it would also be expected that these individuals would exaggerate the performance improvement. For someone who claims to have an "excellent understanding of psychology," I am appalled. Please refer to that journal article above.
They are damn fast, plain and simple. You mention video editing. I'm sorry, but you obviously didn't pay any attention to what I mentioned most people do with their PCs. MOST people are not video editing. They use their PCs for accessing small files spread all over the HD, not multi-gig files located sequentially.
Oh really? Then how come the WD information page for your beloved Raptor boldly mentions the following:
"Performance" High-throughput SATA technology serves up huge files quickly, maximizing system utilization and enhancing productivity."
Note that it doesn't say "Performance: High throughput SATA technology serves up small little files quickly"
Furthermore, you seem to totally miss the fact that the Raptors ACCESS time is lower than the SEEK time of any IDE drive. The Raptor will be faster getting to data and moving small files around, plain and simple. You can't seem to get that through your head.
You apparently don't quite have a grasp of the terminology. Access time = SEEK time + rotational latency + (minor factors). I already TWICE explained to you how the improvement in rotational latency with the Raptor is OFFSET by the increased SEEK TIME you have by moving heads across the entire platter vs. only a fraction of your platters when only a small fraction of your 480GB RAID0 array is occupied.
And you bring up this totally BS point about the warranty. Name me 1 single IDE drive which has a 5 year warranty. Come on, you can come up with one, right? Oh wait, that's right! The only drives which have over 3 year warranties are SCSI and the Raptor. The Raptor is billed as Enterprise level hardware. It's designed for light server usage. This is shown in the Storagereview benches, but you must have ignored those. The hardware is built better than most if not all IDE drives.
I have already explained to you that warranty length does NOT in any way EQUATE to reliability. I even cited an example of how a Geo Metro with a 10-year warranty probably is NOT as reliable as a Honda Civic with a 3-year warranty, even though that Geo Metro has a longer warranty. Companies can include longer warranties to make people THINK their drives are more reliable. It's depressing that you are not able to critically evaluate a parallel example. tsk tsk.
That pricetag isn't just going to the 10,000 RPMs. Oh, you must also have forgot to address my point about the reliability of a 4 drive RAID 0 array....
Thanks for bringing that up. Well the bottom line is that regardless of the reliability of your drives, you should ALWAYS have a backup. ALWAYS. So this is irrelevant. But just for the sake of argument, you can take those 4 Maxtors and put them in a RAID10 configuration - that would give you 100% redundant fault tolerance. this would still give you the performance benefit of RAID0 over a single Raptor, plus be several orders of magnitude more reliable. EAT THAT.
Valsalva
HAHAHA. There you go imaging things again. NOBODY on this thread has demonstrated the importance of "subjective" evaluations of performance. In fact, anytime this notion has been mentioned, I systematically addressed it and gave important reasons why the "feel" of a drive is NOT an accurate tool for comparison of performance evaluation. I think it's hilarious that someone can be so biased (i.e. you) that you can read the thread and NOT catch this point...and this kind of bias that clouds your ability to make accurate comparisons is EXACTLY why subjective observations are not useful. Thank you for further illustrating my points.
Originally posted by: jodhas
One last thing...
HAHAHA. There you go imaging things again. NOBODY on this thread has demonstrated the importance of "subjective" evaluations of performance. In fact, anytime this notion has been mentioned, I systematically addressed it and gave important reasons why the "feel" of a drive is NOT an accurate tool for comparison of performance evaluation. I think it's hilarious that someone can be so biased (i.e. you) that you can read the thread and NOT catch this point...and this kind of bias that clouds your ability to make accurate comparisons is EXACTLY why subjective observations are not useful. Thank you for further illustrating my points.
Here is one "subjective" point of view that EVERYONE will agree to...
Val is an @SS...
Bump me if you agree.
After all, this was Valsalva's argument, in a nutshell. He never said the drive was crap, but rather that with the miniscule overall system performance boost afforded by the Raptor over MUCH cheaper drives, it's just not as universally "hot" a deal as some are vehemently arguing. Even as a neutral onlooker I can tell that the 4x120 RAID0 example was thrown up "half-court from the hip", but the group decided to pick it apart, and deconstruct it to death, so he stuck by his guns. Any of you facing the same stacked deck would be on the defensive as well.Originally posted by: Creig
Um, Ignoring the whole ValsalvaYourHeartOut vs sparkyclarky pissing match, why would anybody need a $220 after rebate 74GB hard drive when deals can be had that get you a 7,200 rpm 80GB Western Digital SE (8mb cache) for $20 after rebates?
Are load times so intolerably slow with these drives that you find the need to spend 11X more money for basically the same amount of storage space? Must be nice to have that kind of money to throw around.
You want benchmarks? Okay:
SR Bootup DriveMark 2002 (from their website)
1x 200 GB DM+9 - 288
2x 200 GB DM+9 RAID - 474
Originally posted by: AStar617
(flame suit on)
I'm still waiting for someone to answer this question:After all, this was Valsalva's argument, in a nutshell. He never said the drive was crap, but rather that with the miniscule overall system performance boost afforded by the Raptor over MUCH cheaper drives, it's just not as universally "hot" a deal as some are vehemently arguing.Originally posted by: Creig
Um, Ignoring the whole ValsalvaYourHeartOut vs sparkyclarky pissing match, why would anybody need a $220 after rebate 74GB hard drive when deals can be had that get you a 7,200 rpm 80GB Western Digital SE (8mb cache) for $20 after rebates?
Are load times so intolerably slow with these drives that you find the need to spend 11X more money for basically the same amount of storage space? Must be nice to have that kind of money to throw around.
Even as a neutral onlooker I can tell that the 4x120 RAID0 example was thrown up "half-court from the hip", but the group decided to pick it apart, and deconstruct it to death, so he stuck by his guns. Any of you facing the same stacked deck would be on the defensive as well.
FWIW, I would not consider this more than a warm deal (the original point of this thread, lest we forget). To me, and probably a lot of others, no hotter than the ~$150 difference between a P4 3.2C and 3.4C...
Originally posted by: treetop
ValsalvaYourHeartOut, can you take my GRE critical thinking and analysis section? :]
Originally posted by: Dug
You want benchmarks? Okay:
SR Bootup DriveMark 2002 (from their website)
1x 200 GB DM+9 - 288
2x 200 GB DM+9 RAID - 474
Oh wait, 1 Raptor scores 610 and you don't have to wait for the bios of the raid card.
---
Originally posted by: myusername
Originally posted by: Dug
You want benchmarks? Okay:
SR Bootup DriveMark 2002 (from their website)
1x 200 GB DM+9 - 288
2x 200 GB DM+9 RAID - 474
Oh wait, 1 Raptor scores 610 and you don't have to wait for the bios of the raid card.
---
This is a legitimate concern, but I didn' t point out the benchmarks above are from a particular test rig used by SR to illustrate the difference in bootup performance (in SR's RAID FAQ). These benchmarks are NOT from a formal review -- and I do NOT believe that the test computers were identical. Thus, it is not possible to make absolute comparisons between the benchmarks above and ones done in a formal review. This is why it is ALWAYS important to evaluate the data you're using before you draw conclusions to make sure it's valid and applicable.
In fact, if you look at the formal review benchmarks (which ARE comparable), you find that a single Maxtor DM-9 160GB has a Bootup DM2002 of 361!! This further illustrates the point that the test rigs were likely non-identical. Furthermore, if you look at the RELATIVE performance improvement from the benchmarks above, you see that the bootup DM2002 is improved by 65% with the addition of striping. A 65% improvement on 361 is 596. I think that 596 very well approximates the result of 610 obtained by the Raptor. Furthermore, with the addition of 2 MORE Maxtors in a 4-drive RAID0, I would expect the Bootup DM2002 to improve EVEN MORE. Again, the 4-drive RAID0 config KILLS the Raptor in this area...which is consistent with the excerpt from SR's website that unequivocally states the performance advantage of RAID0 on the STR-intensive boot process.
Nice try, though.
Valsalva
inferiority complex
n.
A persistent sense of inadequacy or a tendency to self-diminishment, sometimes resulting in excessive aggressiveness through overcompensation.
Originally posted by: masterxfob
hmm, i think i found out the problem with valsalva.......
inferiority complex
n.
A persistent sense of inadequacy or a tendency to self-diminishment, sometimes resulting in excessive aggressiveness through overcompensation.
Originally posted by: ValsalvaYourHeartOut
Originally posted by: masterxfob
hmm, i think i found out the problem with valsalva.......
inferiority complex
n.
A persistent sense of inadequacy or a tendency to self-diminishment, sometimes resulting in excessive aggressiveness through overcompensation.
Well, you got me on that one. I must also have Raptor-envy, because right now I'm running a single 20 MB HD with 16ms access off an ISA controller card. Anything else you got there, Freud?
...or MAYBE...just MAYBE...I happen to be 100% correct, and I've been forced to defend my 4-drive RAID0 suggestion from a barrage of prepubescent, irrelevant, and desperate attacks (from people such as yourself)...but it's nice to know that you're been reading the dictionary and you're capable of reporting back big words that you're not sure how to use.
Valsalva
need i say more?excessive aggressiveness through overcompensation
Originally posted by: masterxfob
Originally posted by: ValsalvaYourHeartOut
Originally posted by: masterxfob
hmm, i think i found out the problem with valsalva.......
inferiority complex
n.
A persistent sense of inadequacy or a tendency to self-diminishment, sometimes resulting in excessive aggressiveness through overcompensation.
Well, you got me on that one. I must also have Raptor-envy, because right now I'm running a single 20 MB HD with 16ms access off an ISA controller card. Anything else you got there, Freud?
...or MAYBE...just MAYBE...I happen to be 100% correct, and I've been forced to defend my 4-drive RAID0 suggestion from a barrage of prepubescent, irrelevant, and desperate attacks (from people such as yourself)...but it's nice to know that you're been reading the dictionary and you're capable of reporting back big words that you're not sure how to use.
Valsalva
need i say more?excessive aggressiveness through overcompensation
Originally posted by: masterxfob
hmm, i think i found out the problem with valsalva.......
inferiority complex
n.
A persistent sense of inadequacy or a tendency to self-diminishment, sometimes resulting in excessive aggressiveness through overcompensation.
Originally posted by: ValsalvaYourHeartOut
Welp...that pretty much sums up this discussion. The sincerest acknowledgement of defeat is when the opposition starts lobbing over the ad hominem attacks.
Anyway, to summarize, my suggestion is that instead of forking over $250 for a Raptor, a better deal would be 4 drives for $20-$60 each in a RAID0 configuration, using a $80 RAID card or the built-in one on your mobo. This gives you 4-5x the storage space, far-better STR-performance, and it's less expensive.
Nobody has offered any valid challenge to the above conclusion, and I think it's pretty much now established that a 4-drive RAID0 config is superior to a single Raptor for the current price.
I can sleep better at night knowing that I didn't squander $250 on a drive when I could have received far-better performance for less. Other people in this thread apparently can't deal with it, and who those people are is painfully obvious.
Valsalva
Originally posted by: masterxfob
did mommy tell you to give it up?